Professional Documents
Culture Documents
sciences
Article
With Socrates on Your Heels and Descartes in Your
Hand: On the Notion of Conflict in John Dewey’s
Democracy and Education
Jan Pouwels 1, * and Gert Biesta 2
1 Unit Pedagogy, Department Social Work, HAN University of Applied Sciences,
NL 6503 GL Nijmegen, The Netherlands
2 Department of Education, Brunel University London, Kingston Lane, Uxbridge, London UB8 3PH, UK;
gert.biesta@brunel.ac.uk
* Correspondence: jan.pouwels@han.nl; Tel.: +31-61426-7711
Abstract: This paper is about the notion of conflict in the work of John Dewey. Special attention is
given to Democracy and Education (1916) because of its centennial and its acclaimed status of “magnum
opus”. After depicting “conflicts as gadflies” that stir thinking—reflection and ingenuity—and
relating it to Socrates, in particular, we present a definition of conflict that guides our research.
From then on a detailed analysis is carried out on the different notions of conflict in Democracy
and Education. It is concluded that Dewey spends considerable attention to the place of conflict in
education in Democracy and Education. We identified 14 distinct references to conflict. The notions
range from conflicts between traditional and modern education, retrospective and prospective aims
of education, the conflict between closing off and opening up of education, social and national
aims of education, conflicts between certain knowledge and thinking, between ready-made and
problem-posing education, between holding to customs and tradition or aiming at social change,
between easy to chew education or allowing to make mistakes, between researching contrary beliefs
or following proclaimed truth, conflicts between individual aims or the aim of society, and vocational
versus intellectual education. Conflicts are conditional for “reflection and ingenuity” is Dewey’s
most iconic conception of conflicts. Conflicts challenge thought by questioning and doubting certain
knowledge. The act involves a risk. We ask two questions at the end of this paper. The first is about
the nature of contradictions and the second is about the use of conflicts in education. We propose
that Dewey was too engaged in resolving contradictions and dualism to understand the positive,
constructive, and conditional nature of conflicts for education. We need our opponents to grow and
we suggest that we probably do not use them enough in education. Concerning the practical use of
conflicts in education, Dewey expects a lot from dialogical cooperation and communication which
will bring agreement and certainty. Dewey does not engage in confronting power, though he has a
clear view on injustice in society, neither does he give prolific directions for including conflicts as a
teaching method in education.
A Socrates is thus led to declare that consciousness of ignorance is the beginning of effective
love of wisdom, and a Descartes to say that science is born of doubting [1] (p. 147).
What is to be done with these facts of disharmony and conflict? After we have discovered
the place and consequences of conflict in nature, we have still to discover its place and
working in human need and thought. What is its office, its function, its possibility, or use?
In general, the answer is simple. Conflict is the gadfly of thought. It stirs us to observation
and memory. It instigates to invention. It shocks us out of sheep-like passivity, and sets us
at noting and contriving. Not that it always effects this result; but that conflict is a sine qua
non of reflection and ingenuity. When this possibility of making use of conflict has once
been noted, it is possible to utilize it systematically to substitute the arbitration of mind for
that of brutal attack and brute collapse [2] (p. 301).
There can be no doubt that the gadfly metaphor is a reference to Plato’s Apology where Socrates
compares himself to a gadfly:
And now, Athenians, I am not going to argue for my own sake, as you may think, but
for yours, that you may not sin against the God by condemning me, who am his gift to
you. For if you kill me you will not easily find a successor to me, who, if I may use such a
ludicrous figure of speech, am a sort of gadfly, given to the state by God; and the state is a
great and noble steed who is tardy in his motions owing to his very size, and requires to
be stirred into life. I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long
and in all places am always fastening upon you, arousing and persuading and reproaching
you. You will not easily find another like me, and therefore I would advise you to spare me.
I dare say that you may feel out of temper (like a person who is suddenly awakened from
sleep), and you think that you might easily strike me dead as Anytus advises, and then
you would sleep on for the remainder of your lives, unless God in his care of you sent you
another gadfly [3] (p. 2).
Socrates not only explains the need for gadflies, but reminds us also to regard gadflies as a gift:
love thy enemies. Of course he knows that those in power do not like gadflies and nor do the common
people. Dewey states clearly, however, that conflicts are necessary to start thinking [2]. Conflicts act
as a gadfly. Most of us do not like gadflies and are disposed to swat them immediately. Neither do
we like conflicts and we are inclined to avoid or deny them or, even worse, destroy those who cause
conflicts. This, however, may not be a good idea, since their function, as Dewey argues, is to awaken
reflection and thinking.
The question Dewey raises is how we could use conflicts for solving our problems, or in his
words, promote progress, without violence but by using intelligence instead. Dewey wants to awaken
people to live deliberately, is critical of conventions, and wants to facilitate individual growth and
transform society through education into a more democratic form. Dewey criticised the formalistic
and disconnected character of education of his day. It seems that he wanted to awaken the intellectual
establishment. As we will discuss below, Democracy and Education can be seen as one ongoing
denunciation of all kinds of habits, conventions, and old theories that determined education in Dewey’s
days [1]. Dewey, being the gadfly, criticizes the existing situation and offers inspiring alternatives.
If conflicts stimulate thought and reflection, then the question this raises is why we do not
use conflicts in education, as a method for promoting reflectivity and ingenuity. Why does much
education persist in an endless separation of buildings, disciplines, and courses offering a disconnected
cafeteria-counter curriculum [4] without using the power of contradiction and controversial issues in
education? The discussion or “disputation” of controversies is necessary “as a tool in the construction
of knowledge”. According to Dascal [5], Leibniz argued that intellectual “cooperation would be best
Educ. Sci. 2017, 7, 7 3 of 14
served by infusing it with a critical spirit that values the confrontation of opposed positions, not for the
doubtful pleasure of winning, but for its potential contribution to advancing our knowledge. Rather
than presuming harmony, knowledge should be built out of the variety of diverging views” [5] (p. xxi).
In this paper we explore Dewey’s views about the value of conflicts in education, focusing on his book
Democracy and Education.
There are not only many conflicts in life but also many definitions and descriptions of what
conflicts are (see, for example, [6–9]). The Cambridge on-line dictionary provides the following
definitions: (a) “a conflict is an active disagreement between people with opposing opinions or
principles”; and (b) “a fighting between two or more groups of people or countries” [10]. For the
purpose of this paper we suggest to see conflicts as severe contradictory opinions about principles and
ideas concerning knowledge, behaviour, and practices. Conflicts can be about goals, interests, and
values and all different spheres of life, the truth, the good, and the beautiful, can be subject to conflicts.
Forms of struggle and fight and dichotomous oppositions are key elements of conflicts. Conflicts can
be latent (“cold”) or manifest (“warm”). Latent conflicts can be characterised by frozen communication,
apathy, procedures of avoiding contact, or full separation and written bureaucratization. Manifest
conflicts can be characterized by the adoration of “sacred ideals”, celebrating leaders, and crushing
collision [9] (pp. 55–92). To become a manifest conflict the contradictions within a conflict need
an active encounter or confrontation. Contradictions and conflicts become destructive when the
encounter or confrontation is aimed at conquering the other or even eliminating the other(ness).
“Violent conflicts are extreme forms of confrontation, where latent antagonisms become explicit and
apparently irresolvable except by the use of force” [7] (p. 281). Contradictions and conflicts, on the
other hand, become constructive when the encounter or confrontation aims at changing or improving
knowledge and understanding.
We read this first explicit mention of conflict in Democracy and Education as the conflict between
conventional educational thoughts and the conflicting nature of young and new people that have a
right to live their future lives. The idea of immaturity as a positive power for growth is essential for
Dewey’s philosophy of education. This paragraph also resonates very well with the gadfly metaphor.
In fact, the function of youth should neither be ignored nor destroyed, but viewed as a moment of
reflection, an impulse for learning.
Development, in short, has taken place by the entrance of shortcuts and alterations in the
prior scheme of growth. And this suggests that the aim of education is to facilitate such
short-circuited growth. The great advantage of immaturity, educationally speaking, is that
it enables us to emancipate the young from the need of dwelling in an outgrown past.
The business of education is rather to liberate the young from reviving and retraversing
the past than to lead them to a recapitulation of it. The social environment of the young is
constituted by the presence and action of the habits of thinking and feeling of civilized men.
To ignore the directive influence of this present environment upon the young is simply to
abdicate the educational function [1] (p. 59).
This second notion of conflict in Democracy and Education is getting closer to the conflict in (school)
education itself. What are we doing there? Are we refreshing what we already know, offering boring
stuff and pouring it in inactive receptive minds that reproduce the knowledge on exams? Or are we
looking with them on what is going on outside, now, trying to understand it and improve it with
the help of older “certain” knowledge and habits that have proven its value? This realization leads
Dewey to probably his most quoted statement a few pages further on, where he presents a technical
definition of education as “a reconstruction or reorganisation of experience which adds to the meaning
of experience and which increases ability to direct the course of subsequent experience.” [1] (p. 62).
It is conceivable that such a definition entails the encounter with conflicts.
The essential point is that isolation makes for rigidity and formal institutionalizing of
life, for static and selfish ideals within the group. That savage tribes regard aliens and
Educ. Sci. 2017, 7, 7 5 of 14
enemies as synonymous is not accidental. It springs from the fact that they have identified
their experience with rigid adherence to their past customs. On such a basis it is wholly
logical to fear intercourse with others, for such contact might dissolve custom. It would
certainly occasion reconstruction. It is a commonplace that an alert and expanding mental
life depends upon an enlarging range of contact with the physical environment. But the
principle applies even more significantly to the field where we are apt to ignore it—the
sphere of social contacts. Every expansive era in the history of mankind has coincided
with the operation of factors which have tended to eliminate distance between peoples and
classes previously hemmed off from one another. Even the alleged benefits of war, so far as
more than alleged, spring from the fact that conflict of peoples at least enforces intercourse
between them and thus accidentally enables them to learn from one another, and thereby
to expand their horizons. Travel, economic and commercial tendencies, have at present
gone far to break down external barriers; to bring peoples and classes into closer and more
perceptible connection with one another [1] (p. 69).
Here Dewey states, literally, that intercourse and openness evoke and demand reconstruction of
knowledge and practices, and that closing off and sticking to one’s own customs will obstruct growth
and development and the expansion of horizons, a key element of Dewey’s philosophy of education
as laid down in chapter four. Surely Dewey cannot be accused of extolling warfare, but even more
than war, he despised isolation and rigidity, let alone to regard aliens as enemies.
To say that thinking occurs with reference to situations which are still going on, and
incomplete, is to say that thinking occurs when things are uncertain or doubtful or
problematic. Only what is finished, completed, is wholly assured. Where there is reflection
there is suspense. The object of thinking is to help reach a conclusion, to project a possible
termination on the basis of what is already given. Certain other facts about thinking
accompany this feature. Since the situation in which thinking occurs is a doubtful one,
thinking is a process of inquiry, of looking into things, of investigating. Acquiring is always
secondary, and instrumental to the act of inquiring. It is seeking, a quest, for something
that is not at hand. (...) It also follows that all thinking involves a risk. Certainty cannot be
guaranteed in advance. The invasion of the unknown is of the nature of an adventure; we
cannot be sure in advance. The conclusions of thinking, till confirmed by the event, are,
accordingly, more or less tentative or hypothetical [1] (p. 116).
Here Dewey hints at the act of learning from experience through reflection, something that
happens in the “twilight zone” when things are uncertain. He mentions a few general features of
such a reflective experience. When there is no evident answer to an experience and more responses
are possible, thinking starts, and learning starts. Dewey is not against knowledge, since it “controls
thinking and makes it fruitful”, but Dewey seems to argue that “going to school” could be somewhat
of a dangerous enterprise as it entails the possibility that you will be changed, at least if you want to
learn something new and not remain in your own local parochialism.
The material of thinking is not thoughts, but actions, facts, events, and the relations of
things. In other words, to think effectively one must have had, or now have, experiences
which will furnish him resources for coping with the difficulty at hand. A difficulty is an
indispensable stimulus to thinking, but not all difficulties call out thinking. Sometimes they
overwhelm and submerge and discourage. The perplexing situation must be sufficiently
like situations which have already been dealt with so that pupils will have some control
of the meanings of handling it. A large part of the art of instruction lies in making the
difficulty of new problems large enough to challenge thought, and small enough so that, in
addition to the confusion naturally attending the novel elements, there shall be luminous
familiar spots from which helpful suggestions may spring [1] (p. 122).
The mind of man is taken captive by the spoils of its prior victories; the spoils, not the
weapons and the acts of waging the battle against the unknown, are used to fix the meaning
of knowledge, of fact, and truth [1] (p. 146).
Educ. Sci. 2017, 7, 7 7 of 14
Education, for Dewey, is an exciting and “dangerous” adventure with Socrates on your heels
asking irritating questions and with Descartes in your hand reminding you to doubt whatever you see,
hear, or read. Dewey goes more on psychology and preludes the findings of Leon Festinger [12] on
cognitive dissonance, when writing:
Even in the case of failure, we are inclined to put the blame not on the inadequacy
and incorrectness of our data and thoughts, but upon our hard luck and the hostility
of circumstance. We charge the evil consequence not to the error of our schemes and our
incomplete inquiry into conditions (thereby getting material for revising the former and
stimulus for extending the latter) but to untoward fate. We even plume ourselves upon
our firmness in clinging to our conceptions in spite of the way in which they work out [1]
(p. 147).
That is unequivocal. Education is causing a conflict between personal values and societal values.
The accusation is extremely urgent since Dewey adds that the child is not aware of it at all, with
almost Freudian consequences. Yet, there is a way out of mechanical rehearsal and adherence to social
conventions, which is through imagination and play, something Dewey already explored in chapter 15.
The imagination is the medium of appreciation in every field. The engagement of the
imagination is the only thing that makes any activity more than mechanical [1] (p. 181).
As livelihood and leisure are opposed, so are theory and practice, intelligence and execution,
knowledge and activity. The latter set of oppositions doubtless springs from the same social
conditions which produce the former conflict; but certain definite problems of education
connected with them make it desirable to discuss explicitly the matter of the relationship
and alleged separation of knowing and doing [1] (p. 201).
The major consequences for education could be to challenge and question the “social conditions
which produce the former conflict” and “to discuss explicitly the matter of relationship” between
the two. Here again we perceive an implicit advocacy for an education that we would like to call a
teaching of conflicts themselves. Dewey points to the need to use both elements of the opposition to
realise a unity that he desperately seeks in the world and in education: experience and thinking, which
is another word for reflective inquiry.
Experience is always hovering, then, on the edge of pretense, of sham, of seeming, and
appearance, in distinction from the reality upon which reason lays hold [1] (p. 203).
Educ. Sci. 2017, 7, 7 9 of 14
Only the single, the uniform, assures coherence and harmony. Out of experience come
warrings, the conflict of opinions and acts within the individual and between individuals.
From experience no standard of belief can issue, because it is the very nature of experience
to instigate all kinds of contrary beliefs, as varieties of local custom proved. Its logical
outcome is that anything is good and true to the particular individual which his experience
leads him to believe true and good at a particular time and place. Finally practice falls of
necessity within experience. Doing proceeds from needs and aims at change. To produce
or to make is to alter something; to consume is to alter. All the obnoxious characters of
change and diversity thus attach themselves to doing while knowing is as permanent as its
object. To know, to grasp a thing intellectually or theoretically, is to be out of the region of
vicissitude, chance, and diversity. Truth has no lack; it is untouched by the perturbations of
the world of sense. It deals with the eternal and the universal. And the world of experience
can be brought under control, can be steadied and ordered, only through subjection to its
law of reason [1] (p. 203).
We need reflective experiences that challenge and question our beliefs, ideas, and assumptions.
Experiences, in other times and other places, show evolution, change, and diversity. Dewey stresses
the interplay of theory—we need a theory to see—and practice, and articulates their different aims.
Yet there is a valid distinction between knowledge which is objective and impersonal,
and thinking which is subjective and personal. In one sense, knowledge is that which
we take for granted. It is that which is settled, disposed of, established, under control.
What we fully know, we do not need to think about. In common phrase, it is certain,
assured. And this does not mean a mere feeling of certainty. It denotes not a sentiment,
but a practical attitude, a readiness to act without reserve or quibble. Of course we may be
mistaken. What is taken for knowledge—for fact and truth—at a given time may not be
such. But everything which is assumed without question, which is taken for granted in our
intercourse with one another and nature is what, at the given time, is called knowledge.
Thinking on the contrary, starts, as we have seen, from doubt or uncertainty. It marks an
inquiring, hunting, searching attitude, instead of one of mastery and possession [1] (p. 226).
Knowledge, grounded knowledge, is science; it represents objects which have been settled,
ordered, disposed of rationally. Thinking, on the other hand, is prospective in reference.
Educ. Sci. 2017, 7, 7 10 of 14
Philosophy was stated to be a form of thinking, which, like all thinking, finds its origin in
what is uncertain in the subject matter of experience, which aims to locate the nature of the
perplexity and to frame hypotheses for its clearing up to be tested in action [1] (p. 253).
Dewey distinguishes thinking explicitly from knowledge and emphasises the ongoing tension
between the two. Thinking is imaginative, hypothetical, trying to define aspects and difficulties, and
trying to find ways to deal with matters and issues. Thinking goes beyond that what we already know.
At the same time thinking challenges that what we consider true.
However, Dewey is very well aware of the abuse that could be made of a specific form of vocational
education. He identifies the contrasting vocational and cultural education as means to continue the
power distortion between the fortunate and the less fortunate people in society. His worries are taken
up by Freire later in the Pedagogy of the Oppressed and discussed in detail in concepts as conquest,
divide and rule, manipulation, and cultural invasion [14]:
There is a standing danger that education will perpetuate the older traditions for a select
few, and effect its adjustment to the newer economic conditions more or less on the
basis of acquiescence in the untransformed, unrationalized, and unsocialized phases of
our defective industrial regime. Put in concrete terms, there is danger that vocational
education will be interpreted in theory and practice as trade education: as a means of
securing technical efficiency in specialized future pursuits. Education would then become
Educ. Sci. 2017, 7, 7 11 of 14
Reading Democracy and Education through the lens of conflicts raises a number of questions.
We wish to raise two. The first concerns the nature of contradictions or dualism. Reading Democracy and
Education, and particularly the latter parts of the book, it seems that Dewey was more or less obsessed
by a desire for combating dualism and alleged contradictions. By stressing the “connectedness” of
things he wanted to resolve apparent oppositions, in a truly Hegelian way [18,19], yet, at the very same
time, Dewey believed that conflicts are necessary for growth, development, and learning. The question
this raises is why Dewey wanted to overcome dualisms rather than seeing them as productive for
(democratic) growth of the individual and society. What is important here is to acknowledge that
dualisms are not so much incompatible positions as two ends of a spectrum. In this regard the opposite
positions of a dualism actually belong together, something Dewey acknowledges.
Thus viewed, contradictions are positive and carry a congeniality, but occupy the extremes of a
spectrum. As Herakleitos has said in a rather cryptic manner: “the path up is the same as the path
down”. And more importantly, the ends need each other. What is our notion of “good” if we do not
have any experience of “bad”. What is light without the dark? What is theory without practice and
what is practice without theory? Conquering, possessing, eradication, or destruction of the one end
would leave the other end paralyzed and meaningless. Communication, so important for Dewey,
must be made fit for the ends to meet. Such a meeting entails conflicts and should be dealt with
in an intelligent matter to start education; “a reconstruction or reorganisation of experience which
adds to the meaning of experience and which increases ability to direct the course of subsequent
experience.” In education, if aimed at growing and change, we should not conduct an educational
fight, and intellectual struggle between contrary positions on a subject aimed at winning the argument,
winning the playing field, or resolving the conflict. It should be aimed at using conflicts in education for
understanding and weighing the arguments of both sides, in real situations. We need our opponents,
our enemies, to understand ourselves and improve our decisions on the issue at stake.
Our second question is about the application of conflicts in education. Dewey is discussing a
great number of conflicts facing the organisation of education within a complex, industrializing society.
He discusses many contradictions in life to make his point regarding the necessity of a new educational
approach in schools. Dewey strongly believes that we need conflicts to awaken us from passivity, from
our natural credulity, and to stir us to re-think and re-construct our opinions and behaviour. Dewey
does acknowledge the comforting and practical use of “certain” knowledge in daily life. However,
to go a step further—that is, in terms of Dewey—to grow as a person, as well as to grow as a society,
education needs to link up with reality, put real difficulties on the table, and evoke an inquiring attitude
in the mind of the students. For that matter, we suggest, that conflicts between opposing ideas and
practices can, and should, be taken on board in education, as the last example showed convincingly.
However, Democracy and Education does not provide us with practical ideas and tools to build
a structured educational practice with a clear pedagogy. To rely on ”sufficient evidence which will
bring agreement and certainty after having reflecting uncertainties”, seems a bit naïve—or perhaps we
should call it optimistic—given the power relations in society that Dewey is well aware of. Schutz’s
critique of Dewey’s ”collaborative democracy”, namely that Dewey did not confront power relations
to fight for social reform, preferably in a non-violent way, sounds plausible and confirms our reading
of Democracy and Education.
The final chapter of Democracy and Education, “Theories of morals,“ might help to understand why
clear guidelines for education and pedagogy are absent in the book. In this chapter Dewey once more
argues against the unwarranted oppositions created in Western moral philosophy between inner and
outer morality, between moral intention and moral behaviour, character and conduct. However, more
importantly, he repeatedly shows his problems with routine and habits in education: “the dominion of
routine habits and blind impulse” [1] (p. 264), ”routine habits” (...) ”dictated directions” (...) “capricious
improvising” [1] (p. 266). Dewey states implicitly, but clearly, that current education is nurturing
this aptitude in students. Questioning, doubting, and hesitation, so important for people’s deliberate
cooperative decision making, hampers action and it seems that, in general, people like action-doing
Educ. Sci. 2017, 7, 7 13 of 14
and dislike hesitation and uncertain situations. Dewey is afraid that people, when confronted with
uncertain situations, will not start conscious deliberation, overt action, ingenious observation, and
personal readjustments:
Under such conditions, men take revenge, as it were, upon the alien and hostile
environment by cultivating contempt for it, by giving it a bad name. They seek refuge and
consolation within their own states of mind, their own imaginings and wishes, which they
compliment by calling both more real and more ideal than the despised outer world [1]
(p. 264).
In other words, there is a tendency to identify the self—or take interest—in what one has
got used to, and to turn away the mind with aversion or irritation when an unexpected
thing which involves an unpleasant modification of habit comes up. Since in the past one
has done one’s duty without having to face such a disagreeable circumstance, why not go
on as one has been? To yield to this temptation means to narrow and isolate the thought of
the self—to treat it as complete. Any habit, no matter how efficient in the past, which has
become set, may at any time bring this temptation with it. To act from principle in such
an emergency is not to act on some abstract principle, or duty at large; it is to act upon
the principle of a course of action, instead of upon the circumstances which have attended
it [1] (p. 267).
The disinclination to dealing with conflicts, the aversion against the unexpected, seems rather a
human disposition in Dewey’s moral philosophy than an expression of the social power relations of
which Dewey was very well aware. In this regard his philosophy is more pedagogical than political.
This moral conviction supports the “collaborative democracy” concept that Dewey developed rather
than moving towards a more explicit consideration of power and the need to address the problems of
power. In this regard it appears, at least from our reading of Democracy and Education, that Dewey’s
appreciation of the value of conflicts in human action remained at the individual and to some extent to
the inter-individual level, but was not lifted to the larger societal level, where Dewey’s appreciation of
conflict remained more analytical than connected to clear educational ambitions.
References
1. Dewey, J. Democracy and Education; Merchant Books: Seaside, OR, USA, 2009.
2. Dewey, J. Human Nature and Conduct. An Introduction to Social Psychology; Holt: New York, NY, USA, 1922.
3. Plato; Jewett, B. (Translator) Apology. Available online: http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/6/5/1656/1656-
h/1656-h.htm (accessed on 21 December 2016).
4. Graff, G. Beyond the Culture Wars. How Teaching the Conflicts Can Revitalize American Education; W.W. Norton:
New York, NY, USA, 1992.
5. Dascal, M. G.W. Leibniz. The Art of Controversies; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008.
6. Dahrendorf, R.G. Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society; Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA,
USA, 1959.
7. Dascal, M. Traditions of controversy and conflict resolution: Can past approaches help to solve present
conflicts (Chapter 15). In Traditions of Controversy; Dascal, M., Chang, H., Eds.; John Benjamins: Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 281–295.
8. Eberg, J. Conflicten Maken Mensen. (Conflicts Make People) Waarom zijn er Conflicten en Waar Komen ze Vandaan?
Noordhoff Uitgevers: Groningen, The Netherlands, 2012.
9. Glasl, F. Handboek Conflict Management; SWP: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015.
10. Conflict. In Cambridge Dictionary; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2016. Available online:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/conflict (accessed on 21 December 2016).
Educ. Sci. 2017, 7, 7 14 of 14
© 2017 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).